People v. Digby
405 Ill. App. 3d 544
Ill. App. Ct.2010Background
- Defendant Jerald Digby was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance after a jury trial in Cook County.
- Digby was charged in relation to an incident on February 27, 2008, involving sale of crack cocaine to an undercover officer.
- During voir dire, the court explained the presumption of innocence, the State’s burden, and that the defendant need not present evidence, including not testifying, with group questioning and individual follow-ups.
- The record shows the venire was asked about the four Rule 431(b) principles, and jurors were polled via a show of hands for group responses.
- Digby challenged whether the court complied with Rule 431(b) as amended in 2007, arguing the language and method were insufficient.
- The appellate court held the questioning complied with Rule 431(b) and that any noncompliance would be forfeited due to no trial objection or posttrial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 431(b) was satisfied | Digby contends noncompliance with Rule 431(b). | Digby argues the court failed to use exact language and proper individual questioning. | Court found compliance with Rule 431(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Vargas, 396 Ill.App.3d 465 (2009) (approach to Rule 431(b) flexibility in questioning)
- People v. Ingram, 401 Ill.App.3d 382 (2010) (en masse admonition followed by questions satisfies Rule 431(b))
- People v. Strickland, 399 Ill.App.3d 590 (2010) (group questioning with jury response acceptable)
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill.2d 598 (2010) (mandatory Rule 431(b) questioning via group or individual responses; nonstructural error)
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill.2d 551 (2007) (forfeiture for failure to object)